|
I think we've agreed to discuss this as such, but when we're saying "you" it's the figurative you and not you, Tiksi, I'm speaking of. As a society, we absolutely have a need to educate. In individual instances, most of the time I find it's not worth doing more than pointedly saying, "RUDE," and walking away. (This is when presented with bigotries, not just any idea I disagree with. I'll listen to you be wrong about using emacs instead of vim all day, I won't listen to you be wrong about whether or not a class of people deserves to be treated equally, especially if membership to that class of people is involuntary.) On HN, there are people who can have a negative effect on you or your career, and you should conduct yourself as such on here. It's a public, non-anonymous forum and should be treated as such. In addition, there's a difference between well-intentioned opinion that comes from an ignorant place and an ill-intentioned one. "Kill all bluists," is different than, "Bluists are more likely to commit violent crime." I'm not saying the status quo is always right, nor am I trying to imply it, rather I'm stating that you should have defensible rationalizations for their opinions whether or not they fit the status quo, but if they differ you should be able to reason it. If you don't have a thought-out reason for your opinions and you still find them valid, there's no way for a conversation to actually occur. As for "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution." You lost me, I don't exactly understand the point that you're making with that example, is there a more concrete example you can give? |